Primary Documents (All names, titles, dates et cetera NOW UP)
Francesco Petrarch, True Wisdom, sometime between (1304-1374)
Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302)
NOTE: Unlikey to have a quote on the exam because of the excessive and extensive footnoting that would be exceedingly hard for Baldwin to format so as to fit on a test.
Quotes Noah as the first leader of all the world, both spiritual and temporal (since he was the only dude left after the flood). Contends in this tradition that the world should be subservient to a single spiritual authority, AKA the Pope AKA himself. Talks about a two swords metaphor, used also in argument by John of Paris, saying one sword must be above the other, and the sword that is on top is the spiritual sword. Talks in same vein of "Great Chain of Being" idea, that temporal is subject to spiritual authority, subject to greater spiritual authority until the spiritual authority is subject only to God himself.
CLOSING LINE: "In consequence of which we declare, assert, define, and pronounce that it is entirely necessary for salvation that all human creation be subject to the Pope of Rome."
John of Paris, On Royal and Papal Power, (1302)
Student of Thomas Aquinas, supports separate but equal powers of king and Pope, each ruling what he is best suited to have authority over. Interestingly uses the same Bible passages and similar arguments to Boniface, but draws the opposite conclusions. He integrates Aristotle's political theory with Bible passages, concluding that it is the King's job to work for the common good, and the spiritual leaders job to guide each individual on the quest for eternal life in heaven. It is necessary for the world to be ruled by one man in respect of spiritual matters, but not in temporal matters. Spiritual leaders are superior in dignity, but still not with power over temporal things.
KEY QUOTE:
"Hence, the priest is superior principally in spiritual matters, and, conversely, the prince is superior in temporal matters, although the priest is superior absolutely insofar as the spiritual is superior to the temporal."
Vergerius, The New Education (1400)
Contends that man can only be truly fulfilled in his pursuit of the liberal arts. For a brute pleasure is the one aim of existence, while for a moral and intellectual man, self improvement, education, and even fame are vital. Again, man must exploit God's gifts and pursue those talents that were bestowed upon him at birth. Children should be encouraged to study and to learn classical literature, philosophy etc. and prompted to explore their own abilities and cultivate them. (physically too- well rounded education!) Yet, man must not learn and improve for the sake of it, he should be driven to participate and to contribute. As an active citizen this is his duty to his state.
Pico, Oration on the Dignity of Man (1480)
man equals da bomb - reasons that God awarded man free will and thus the right to choose his own position or place in the scheme of all other living things, whether of the earthly or heavenly world. Essentially, because man can choose his own nature while all other creatures (pigs, insects, angels) have had theirs assigned to them. An angel does not choose to be good, it is inherent in his nature to be so. Pico argues that man's capacity for goodness can elevate him even far above angels or divine beings because his potential is boundless, because he decides his own capabilities or limitations. He can strive to understand and improve the world around him or he can live like a dog. "...trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature" >Elementary humanist thinking. Man must glorify God by exploiting his own talents for the betterment of the society in which he lives. (God's gifts) Interestingly synthesizes sources from Persia, Bible, ancient Rome, etc (renaissance spread of info!)
Machiavelli, The Prince, (1513)q1
-Essentially an instructional manual. It explains specifically and without delicacy or skirting how a ruler can gain and also maintain power over a state. Machiavelli asserts that although it is in the best interest of a ruler to be loved and feared, it is better to be feared. Fear is within the power of a ruler to inspire within a population while love is an individual choice and will often waver. Also, a ruler should be flexible, he should be able to evolve with changes in fortune, or the attitudes and needs of the people. Essentially, Machiavelli's The Prince communicated that it is the responsibility of a prince or ruler to do anything necessary to preserve stability within a state, so that the people can live politically secure lives. "The ends justify the means.">Civic humanism: man is a political animal programmed to form societies, predisposed to move and conform to a group. A Prince must be ready to seize power and to make certain sacrifices for the good of the group.
Erasmus Manual of a Christian Soldier (1503) and The Colloquies (1516)
Suggests that it is imperative for man to cast aside secular, or earthly desires and to live after Christ's model. He encourages men not to invest all of their faith in the church and to instead live moral lives: simplicity, humility. He calls for a return to Christ and for changes within the church that would allow Christ's teaches to be made more accessible to the masses and to do away with excessive ceremony and pomp that only create a greater disconnect between modern Christians and the teachings of Christ.
Sir Thomas More, Utopia (1516)
Oh wow. this is the hardcore document, my friends. however, I can summarize the vague plot and hope to dear god we don't get this one. There is a traveller that has been to the island Utopia, and he describes it as perfect. there is:
-geographic and cultural homogeny
-private property does not exist
-free exchange of goods w/out compensation
-religious toleration is practiced (except concerning atheists)
-extreme gov & social hierarchy down to family heads
-rotating town and farm jobs
Martin Luther, Liberty of the Christian Man (1520)
-"The Christian man is the most entirely free lord of all, subject to all/The Christian man is the most entirely dutiful servant of all, subject to everybody"
-Man is both spritiual and corporeal/the inner and outer man
-How does a man become just, free and truly Christian--nothing outside of him can lead him to it any more than it can lead to evil
-There is no hierarchy--you aren't any more spritiual if you have holy garments, or are in a holy offfice, or live in a holy place, or fast/abstain from certain foods
-What you need for the Christian life, righteousness and liberty--the Word of God/faith
-Faith alone saves us--the commandments do show us what we ought to do, but they don't confer power to us from that action
-A true Christian man will find his faith to be enough and won't need to try and complete good works to get into Heaven, he will do them anyway
-we do need to take care of our outer body though, and therefore have to fast and perform vigils, et cetera to keep it subservient to the mind and not vice versa
-Baldwin Analogy: If I have a jersey, then I'm on the football team, but if I went into Wes' room and stole his football jersey, that doesn't make me a member of the team, because you have to have already had the jersey. Faith is the same way--you either get it from God or you don't, and you can't change that with work
Letters of Sir Thomas More, (1529-1534)
This guy was really holy. I would almost call him a sucker. His barns and corn were lost, but he thanks god heartily for it, since it at least indicates the presence of a god, whom we should "thank as well for adversity as for prosperity." In the second lettter, he discusses how he cannot allow such a law to be made as would separate England from the Roman Church. Again, is super holy about the probability of his resulting execution: "it were great folly for me to be sorry to come to that death which I would after wish I had died." Even at this point of probable execution by the king after disagreeing with him : "his true subject will I live and die, and truly pray for him will I, both here and in the other world too."
Huldrych Zwingli, An Exposition on Faith (1531)
-talks about how recieving communion is strictly symbolic of christ, but is neither physically nor spiritually the prescence of God
-"soul strengthening" by recieving communion is only to make yourself feel better, but it doesnt necessarily send you to heaven! God already picked that awhile ago (predestination); communion is solely comfort for the sorrow that you may not be saved
-"you are undeserving of spiritual salvation."
-"all sacraments do give gaith, BUT only historical faith."
-the communion reminds us of Christ's suffering for us
-IMPORTANT MESSAGE: "Therefore if we are to examine oursleves before we come it is quite impossible that the Supper should give faith: for faith must be present already before we come"
-IN OTHER WORDS: we already have to have the jersey before we can accept to go to football practice, right? so we go to mass because we have faith, but not to gain salvation from sacraments...
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536)
- He rejected the Thomastic idea.
- "Pious minds" (line 7) -> using realm to understand "Christian Humanism."
- Not everyone is chose, and it is ok not to be chosen.
- Salvation is either Gods' gift or you can earn it yourself. BUT, CANNOT be both!
- If you earn it, then, it is not a gift anymore.
- "Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety, dares absolutely to deny..." (Lines 42-43)
- "In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom He would admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction." (Lines 44-46)
- For Calvin Church is there to give you an opportunity to learn more about God and learn more about the relationships between you and God.
- Communion is not symbolic. It is not about physical change, but about changes in spiritual.
- Nothing co-exists.
Pope Pius IV, Bull on the Confirmation of the Council of Trent (1563)
-After the Council, all of you secular and religious rulers out there need to listen to what we say--it's da rules
-Gotta get rid of the heretics, so we need you to follow up on what we say
-Don't publish any commentaries or glosses or any other interpretation of the degrees of the Council without our approval--if you don't understand something come ask us, since we are the authority
-We're gonna put these rules up everywhere so you all know them, so don't try to act like you don't
-If you f* around, God will smite you--really, he's going to do it
Galileo Galilei, Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615)
-Basic Idea: The Church are stubborn SOBs and they are interpreting what the bible says incorrectly if they think that the sun revolves around the earth, and if you question them thee subject
-The bible can’t be wrong, but if X and NOT X seem to contradict, then X is being misinterpreted—if the Bible says that something is true but observation and experimentation shows that it isn’t, then you are interpreting what the bible says incorrectly
-If God gave us our sense, trust them—If you deny them, you are denying God
-Truth isn’t a majority kind of thing, most people don’t understand the Bible AND Science, that isn’t right
Baldwin Analogy: The Pope isn’t the expert on Key lime pie, so don’t expect him to be the expert on key lime pie—just like that, he isn’t the expert on science so don’t expect him to know everything about it
Roberto Francesco Romolo Cardinal Bellarmino,** Letter to Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, (1615)
-Basic Idea: Copernicus is completely wrong! It's ok to talk about the sun being at the center of the universe and turning on it's axis hypothetically, but when you try to affirm it you are challenging philosophy, science, and the Bible and the Church
-Denying that this is true is just as bad as saying that anything else in the Bible was untrue!
If there was somehow a demonstration of the earth rotating around the sun, we would have to say we didn't understand the Bible, not that it was false cause saying it isn't true would be bad--but there's been no demonstration that I've seen so it's all good
In the end, we all can feel that the earth doesn't move so it's all good
Francis Bacon, The Refutation of Philosophies (1608) and A New System of Logic (1620)
-Basic Idea: What someone said in the past shouldn’t make up all of your opinions, you are better than even Aristotle if you try because you have him AND everything that came after him—you have all his work and your own contribution
-New System: Basic Idea: Start with a general idea and get more specific, accumulation leads to axiom induction, DO NOT just assume that since you see a Dogs brown fur and assume that all animals are brown and furry, cause then when you try to explain it, it’s ridiculous
-Four things beset men’s minds: Four tribes include The Idols of the Tribe (We understand things the way we understand them because we see them through the eyes of a human) the Idols of the Cave (prejiduices are just ours, the way we see things, we each have our own “cave” which reflects and distorts the lights of nature,) Idols of the Marketplace (if we can figure it out, we can’t use words to effectively explain it because language doesn’t really work to explain things) and Idols of the Theater (Accepted views we already have, you’ve got to go against things that ‘everybody knows’ sometimes
Baldwin Analogy: Again, this one was pretty obvious when he explained it
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637)
-Basic Idea: Starts with Bacon, Descartes was concerned with acquiring new knowledge but the world complicates knowledge by distorting it
-You have to doubt everything that comes from other people, nothing that you cannot personally prove can be true: therefore “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am) could be “I doubt therefore I am”
-I am the only thing that exists as well as God—God exists because I am imperfect and therefore must have some basis for perfection, which is God
Baldwin Analogy: Can you ever really prove that anything someone tells you or things you observe are real? Couldn’t it all be a dream?
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)
-We are born into a state of nature wherein everyone can do whatever they want, but so can everyone else and there is nothing to stop them cause there is no significant difference between one man and another
-You make a hypothetical/unspoken DEAL with the king when you give them your rights, therefore you cannot overthrow them, you get the rights that they give to you
-Parliament beheading James I=WTF! You made a deal with him!
-The ruler can never do anything wrong because he has been given the rights of all people. Anything is better than the state of nature.
Baldwin Analogy: If you’re in the state of nature, and you have a plot of potatoes, Bob can come in and take your potatoes unless you have a big stick to defend yourself with, unless of course Bob has a posse together to take your potatoes too. The government would watch out for your potatoes, but tax collectors would come in and take your money--better to know that it’s just them taking taxes than any schmoe who wants to take your shit.
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, (1690)
-We have the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and Property,” governments aren’t allowed to just come in and take your shit, kill your family and chuck you in jail
-They CAN throw you in jail if you break the law that is rightfully in place, but if they try to take your unalienable rights then you should turn around and overthrow them, cause the governments function is to protect our unalienable rights
-Protection of these rights and betterment of themselves is the reason that men enter into governments together as groups
Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): This one is pretty self explanatory I think
-Basic Idea: We have natural liberties that we enjoy, but the best way to make a social government is for every single man in a group to give in every single thing we have, everyone then has the same interests
-This is better than the state of nature, because we give up our personal rights for the good things in our lives (roads, laws, schools cops et cetera) without getting the bad stuff (taxes, imprisonment et cetera)
-Everyone gives in so no one is above anyone else
Baldwin analogy: What you do for the team may not always be what you want, but if you do it you’ll get what is really important—you want to be QB but you can’t all be QB, so you have to be RB and if you do that, then the team will win and THAT is what you really want
Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach, Good Sense, (1772)
-Basic Idea: Religion is a complete illusion and if you used your common sense you would realize this, religion only makes fools and slaves of us all, to free men from vices you must first make him confront his stereotypes and if you want people to do the right thing, tell them to use their common sense to do it.
Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): Wikipedia tells us things that it immediately claims as true, although everyone can edit it as they see fit. Therefore, if you accept everything that Wikipedia tells you as true you are not looking for the truth, and you are not using your common sense.
Voltaire, “On Francis Bacon” from Letters on the English, (1778)
Although the title says, "On Francis Bacon, Voltaire is actually comparing Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton, or the French (Descartes) and the English (Newton) and there methods to approaching philosopy. Voltaire is exploring the possibilities for why the two differed in thought. Newton believes that because Descartes struggled, his philosophies were of course more poetic and soulful and passionate because he had experienced many different types of emotions and incoporated that into his beliefs. Descartes had more reason to be bitter and depressed (ex. loss of his daughter). Newton was much different. He had lived a happy life, and mankind was "his pupil" rather than his "enemy", as it was for Descartes. Basically, Voltaire is just exploring the different philosopies and why one is positive while the other is negative.
Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment, (1784)
-Enlightenment is moving out of immaturity, immaturity is the inability to use your understanding without someone elses guidance, and you bring that immaturity on yourself
-This immaturity is accepted by men because they are lazy cowards, and you cannot just let the Church decide things for you and tell you what is right and wrong down through the ages, because it limits the next ages knowledge since no one can ever question it without being a heretic and getting burnt at the stake
-It’s out divine right to question and to reason, so people are free to bring forth their beliefs for others to judge but you cannot just state something as true and MAKE people believe it—you’re immature if you do that, or if you let other people do it to you.
Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): If you let people who are supposedly “experts” tell you what to do, then you are being a fool. If you go onto google and type in the topic for an essay, expecting someone else to have answered it for you and accept that as the truth and u*se it, you are cheating and being “immature” according to Kant
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Sir Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
- French Revolution is not good.
- There are some good things that government and states have done.
- Government's job is to keep a good reputation.
- France was created with people from old days and they had built good reputation, and recent people did nothing about it.
- However, at this point, people wanted to some changes, and they wanted to try new things.
- Different people have different opinions
- It is NOT government's obligation to fulfill the desires of each person
Marie Jean Antoine Caritat, marquis de Concordet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Human Mind, (1793)
-Man has some unalienable rights, we are only just discovering this recently and now we may say them anytime that we wish
-The truth will win out in the end, no matter what people may do or what may happen in the world “The time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free men who know no other master but their reason”
-“Nature has set no limit to the realization of our hopes”, we will always be discovering new truth, no more tyrants, no more priests telling us what we must believe, and we will realize how to stop them from ever rising again
Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): When you were born, people were telling you what was true and you accepted it, and they controlled you completely. But as you got older, you started to discover for yourself what was “true” and what was not, and so you will always be doing until you are truly your own person
Tierney Documents.....yay....
French National Assembly The August 4th Decree (1789)
National Assembly, Declarations of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789)
Charles Tilly, The Vendee (1791)
Olympe de Gouges, Declaration of the Rights of Women and the Female Citizen (1791)
National Convention, Session of 9 Brumaire (1791)
Sans-Culotte, What is a Sans-Culotte
Maximilien Robespierre, On Principles of Political Morality (1794)
Maximillien Robespieere- explains what the Revolution is all about- to establish a nation based on liberty and equality→ model for all other nations with monarchies→ urges Convention to remove any opponents of the revolution violently- any opponents to the Revolution are keeping it from reaching its highest potential- thus, any and all against the Revolution must be exterminated
Napoleon's Agents, An Instruction for Senators (1805)
Post-Midterm Tierney/Primary Documents
William Wordsworth The Excursion (1814)
Thomas Babington Macaulay, On the Reform Bill of 1832, (1832)
English Working Class Protestors People's Petition of 1838 (1838)
Address of the Female Political Union of Newcastle to their Fellow Countrywomen (1839)
Louis Blanc, The Organization of Labor (1840)
Uncle Karl and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848)
Carl Schurz, Reminiscences (1848?)
"It was not mindful of the fact that in times of great commotion the history of the world does not wait for a theoretical thinker. And thus it failed." (I just think this quote sums up why a lot of bad things happen when it comes to the world...maybe that's just me.)
Basically, this document was looking at the political atmosphere in the German states following the revolution in 1848, and how the reason that the Parliament of Frankfurt failed was because they didn't establish a ruler (Kaiser) quick enough, so therefore the German princes who still had power stopped listening to what this government had to say. They felt like every time the parliament gave the common people more power, they (the nobles) were losing more power. this is a pretty clear concept, but it's important in this portion of history. In addition, it addresses the fact that there were numerous German states that included other nationalities, such as the Austrian empire that contained German, Magyar, Slavic and Italian peoples, and how this influenced how much power the central German government could have, since these people were being stimulated by the revolutions going on around them.
Primary Documents (All names, titles, dates et cetera NOW UP)
Francesco Petrarch, True Wisdom, sometime between (1304-1374)
Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302)
NOTE: Unlikey to have a quote on the exam because of the excessive and extensive footnoting that would be exceedingly hard for Baldwin to format so as to fit on a test.Quotes Noah as the first leader of all the world, both spiritual and temporal (since he was the only dude left after the flood). Contends in this tradition that the world should be subservient to a single spiritual authority, AKA the Pope AKA himself. Talks about a two swords metaphor, used also in argument by John of Paris, saying one sword must be above the other, and the sword that is on top is the spiritual sword. Talks in same vein of "Great Chain of Being" idea, that temporal is subject to spiritual authority, subject to greater spiritual authority until the spiritual authority is subject only to God himself.
CLOSING LINE: "In consequence of which we declare, assert, define, and pronounce that it is entirely necessary for salvation that all human creation be subject to the Pope of Rome."
John of Paris, On Royal and Papal Power, (1302)
Student of Thomas Aquinas, supports separate but equal powers of king and Pope, each ruling what he is best suited to have authority over. Interestingly uses the same Bible passages and similar arguments to Boniface, but draws the opposite conclusions. He integrates Aristotle's political theory with Bible passages, concluding that it is the King's job to work for the common good, and the spiritual leaders job to guide each individual on the quest for eternal life in heaven. It is necessary for the world to be ruled by one man in respect of spiritual matters, but not in temporal matters. Spiritual leaders are superior in dignity, but still not with power over temporal things.KEY QUOTE:
"Hence, the priest is superior principally in spiritual matters, and, conversely, the prince is superior in temporal matters, although the priest is superior absolutely insofar as the spiritual is superior to the temporal."
Vergerius, The New Education (1400)
Contends that man can only be truly fulfilled in his pursuit of the liberal arts. For a brute pleasure is the one aim of existence, while for a moral and intellectual man, self improvement, education, and even fame are vital. Again, man must exploit God's gifts and pursue those talents that were bestowed upon him at birth. Children should be encouraged to study and to learn classical literature, philosophy etc. and prompted to explore their own abilities and cultivate them. (physically too- well rounded education!) Yet, man must not learn and improve for the sake of it, he should be driven to participate and to contribute. As an active citizen this is his duty to his state.Pico, Oration on the Dignity of Man (1480)
man equals da bomb - reasons that God awarded man free will and thus the right to choose his own position or place in the scheme of all other living things, whether of the earthly or heavenly world. Essentially, because man can choose his own nature while all other creatures (pigs, insects, angels) have had theirs assigned to them. An angel does not choose to be good, it is inherent in his nature to be so. Pico argues that man's capacity for goodness can elevate him even far above angels or divine beings because his potential is boundless, because he decides his own capabilities or limitations. He can strive to understand and improve the world around him or he can live like a dog. "...trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature" >Elementary humanist thinking. Man must glorify God by exploiting his own talents for the betterment of the society in which he lives. (God's gifts) Interestingly synthesizes sources from Persia, Bible, ancient Rome, etc (renaissance spread of info!)Machiavelli, The Prince, (1513)q1
-Essentially an instructional manual. It explains specifically and without delicacy or skirting how a ruler can gain and also maintain power over a state. Machiavelli asserts that although it is in the best interest of a ruler to be loved and feared, it is better to be feared. Fear is within the power of a ruler to inspire within a population while love is an individual choice and will often waver. Also, a ruler should be flexible, he should be able to evolve with changes in fortune, or the attitudes and needs of the people. Essentially, Machiavelli's The Prince communicated that it is the responsibility of a prince or ruler to do anything necessary to preserve stability within a state, so that the people can live politically secure lives. "The ends justify the means.">Civic humanism: man is a political animal programmed to form societies, predisposed to move and conform to a group. A Prince must be ready to seize power and to make certain sacrifices for the good of the group.Erasmus Manual of a Christian Soldier (1503) and The Colloquies (1516)
Suggests that it is imperative for man to cast aside secular, or earthly desires and to live after Christ's model. He encourages men not to invest all of their faith in the church and to instead live moral lives: simplicity, humility. He calls for a return to Christ and for changes within the church that would allow Christ's teaches to be made more accessible to the masses and to do away with excessive ceremony and pomp that only create a greater disconnect between modern Christians and the teachings of Christ.Sir Thomas More, Utopia (1516)
Oh wow. this is the hardcore document, my friends. however, I can summarize the vague plot and hope to dear god we don't get this one. There is a traveller that has been to the island Utopia, and he describes it as perfect. there is:-geographic and cultural homogeny
-private property does not exist
-free exchange of goods w/out compensation
-religious toleration is practiced (except concerning atheists)
-extreme gov & social hierarchy down to family heads
-rotating town and farm jobs
Martin Luther, Liberty of the Christian Man (1520)
-"The Christian man is the most entirely free lord of all, subject to all/The Christian man is the most entirely dutiful servant of all, subject to everybody"-Man is both spritiual and corporeal/the inner and outer man
-How does a man become just, free and truly Christian--nothing outside of him can lead him to it any more than it can lead to evil
-There is no hierarchy--you aren't any more spritiual if you have holy garments, or are in a holy offfice, or live in a holy place, or fast/abstain from certain foods
-What you need for the Christian life, righteousness and liberty--the Word of God/faith
-Faith alone saves us--the commandments do show us what we ought to do, but they don't confer power to us from that action
-A true Christian man will find his faith to be enough and won't need to try and complete good works to get into Heaven, he will do them anyway
-we do need to take care of our outer body though, and therefore have to fast and perform vigils, et cetera to keep it subservient to the mind and not vice versa
-Baldwin Analogy: If I have a jersey, then I'm on the football team, but if I went into Wes' room and stole his football jersey, that doesn't make me a member of the team, because you have to have already had the jersey. Faith is the same way--you either get it from God or you don't, and you can't change that with work
Letters of Sir Thomas More, (1529-1534)
This guy was really holy. I would almost call him a sucker. His barns and corn were lost, but he thanks god heartily for it, since it at least indicates the presence of a god, whom we should "thank as well for adversity as for prosperity." In the second lettter, he discusses how he cannot allow such a law to be made as would separate England from the Roman Church. Again, is super holy about the probability of his resulting execution: "it were great folly for me to be sorry to come to that death which I would after wish I had died." Even at this point of probable execution by the king after disagreeing with him : "his true subject will I live and die, and truly pray for him will I, both here and in the other world too."Huldrych Zwingli, An Exposition on Faith (1531)
-talks about how recieving communion is strictly symbolic of christ, but is neither physically nor spiritually the prescence of God-"soul strengthening" by recieving communion is only to make yourself feel better, but it doesnt necessarily send you to heaven! God already picked that awhile ago (predestination); communion is solely comfort for the sorrow that you may not be saved
-"you are undeserving of spiritual salvation."
-"all sacraments do give gaith, BUT only historical faith."
-the communion reminds us of Christ's suffering for us
-IMPORTANT MESSAGE: "Therefore if we are to examine oursleves before we come it is quite impossible that the Supper should give faith: for faith must be present already before we come"
-IN OTHER WORDS: we already have to have the jersey before we can accept to go to football practice, right? so we go to mass because we have faith, but not to gain salvation from sacraments...
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536)
- He rejected the Thomastic idea.- "Pious minds" (line 7) -> using realm to understand "Christian Humanism."
- Not everyone is chose, and it is ok not to be chosen.
- Salvation is either Gods' gift or you can earn it yourself. BUT, CANNOT be both!
- If you earn it, then, it is not a gift anymore.
- "Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety, dares absolutely to deny..." (Lines 42-43)
- "In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom He would admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction." (Lines 44-46)
- For Calvin Church is there to give you an opportunity to learn more about God and learn more about the relationships between you and God.
- Communion is not symbolic. It is not about physical change, but about changes in spiritual.
- Nothing co-exists.
Pope Pius IV, Bull on the Confirmation of the Council of Trent (1563)
-After the Council, all of you secular and religious rulers out there need to listen to what we say--it's da rules-Gotta get rid of the heretics, so we need you to follow up on what we say
-Don't publish any commentaries or glosses or any other interpretation of the degrees of the Council without our approval--if you don't understand something come ask us, since we are the authority
-We're gonna put these rules up everywhere so you all know them, so don't try to act like you don't
-If you f* around, God will smite you--really, he's going to do it
Galileo Galilei, Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615)
-Basic Idea: The Church are stubborn SOBs and they are interpreting what the bible says incorrectly if they think that the sun revolves around the earth, and if you question them thee subject-The bible can’t be wrong, but if X and NOT X seem to contradict, then X is being misinterpreted—if the Bible says that something is true but observation and experimentation shows that it isn’t, then you are interpreting what the bible says incorrectly
-If God gave us our sense, trust them—If you deny them, you are denying God
-Truth isn’t a majority kind of thing, most people don’t understand the Bible AND Science, that isn’t right
Baldwin Analogy: The Pope isn’t the expert on Key lime pie, so don’t expect him to be the expert on key lime pie—just like that, he isn’t the expert on science so don’t expect him to know everything about it
Roberto Francesco Romolo Cardinal Bellarmino,** Letter to Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, (1615)
-Basic Idea: Copernicus is completely wrong! It's ok to talk about the sun being at the center of the universe and turning on it's axis hypothetically, but when you try to affirm it you are challenging philosophy, science, and the Bible and the Church-Denying that this is true is just as bad as saying that anything else in the Bible was untrue!
If there was somehow a demonstration of the earth rotating around the sun, we would have to say we didn't understand the Bible, not that it was false cause saying it isn't true would be bad--but there's been no demonstration that I've seen so it's all good
In the end, we all can feel that the earth doesn't move so it's all good
Francis Bacon, The Refutation of Philosophies (1608) and A New System of Logic (1620)
-Basic Idea: What someone said in the past shouldn’t make up all of your opinions, you are better than even Aristotle if you try because you have him AND everything that came after him—you have all his work and your own contribution-New System: Basic Idea: Start with a general idea and get more specific, accumulation leads to axiom induction, DO NOT just assume that since you see a Dogs brown fur and assume that all animals are brown and furry, cause then when you try to explain it, it’s ridiculous
-Four things beset men’s minds: Four tribes include The Idols of the Tribe (We understand things the way we understand them because we see them through the eyes of a human) the Idols of the Cave (prejiduices are just ours, the way we see things, we each have our own “cave” which reflects and distorts the lights of nature,) Idols of the Marketplace (if we can figure it out, we can’t use words to effectively explain it because language doesn’t really work to explain things) and Idols of the Theater (Accepted views we already have, you’ve got to go against things that ‘everybody knows’ sometimes
Baldwin Analogy: Again, this one was pretty obvious when he explained it
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637)
-Basic Idea: Starts with Bacon, Descartes was concerned with acquiring new knowledge but the world complicates knowledge by distorting it-You have to doubt everything that comes from other people, nothing that you cannot personally prove can be true: therefore “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am) could be “I doubt therefore I am”
-I am the only thing that exists as well as God—God exists because I am imperfect and therefore must have some basis for perfection, which is God
Baldwin Analogy: Can you ever really prove that anything someone tells you or things you observe are real? Couldn’t it all be a dream?
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)
-We are born into a state of nature wherein everyone can do whatever they want, but so can everyone else and there is nothing to stop them cause there is no significant difference between one man and another-You make a hypothetical/unspoken DEAL with the king when you give them your rights, therefore you cannot overthrow them, you get the rights that they give to you
-Parliament beheading James I=WTF! You made a deal with him!
-The ruler can never do anything wrong because he has been given the rights of all people. Anything is better than the state of nature.
Baldwin Analogy: If you’re in the state of nature, and you have a plot of potatoes, Bob can come in and take your potatoes unless you have a big stick to defend yourself with, unless of course Bob has a posse together to take your potatoes too. The government would watch out for your potatoes, but tax collectors would come in and take your money--better to know that it’s just them taking taxes than any schmoe who wants to take your shit.
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, (1690)
-We have the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and Property,” governments aren’t allowed to just come in and take your shit, kill your family and chuck you in jail-They CAN throw you in jail if you break the law that is rightfully in place, but if they try to take your unalienable rights then you should turn around and overthrow them, cause the governments function is to protect our unalienable rights
-Protection of these rights and betterment of themselves is the reason that men enter into governments together as groups
Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): This one is pretty self explanatory I think
Hobbes Vs. Locke
Jean-Jaques Rousseau, The Social Contract, (1762)
-Basic Idea: We have natural liberties that we enjoy, but the best way to make a social government is for every single man in a group to give in every single thing we have, everyone then has the same interests-This is better than the state of nature, because we give up our personal rights for the good things in our lives (roads, laws, schools cops et cetera) without getting the bad stuff (taxes, imprisonment et cetera)
-Everyone gives in so no one is above anyone else
Baldwin analogy: What you do for the team may not always be what you want, but if you do it you’ll get what is really important—you want to be QB but you can’t all be QB, so you have to be RB and if you do that, then the team will win and THAT is what you really want
Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach, Good Sense, (1772)
-Basic Idea: Religion is a complete illusion and if you used your common sense you would realize this, religion only makes fools and slaves of us all, to free men from vices you must first make him confront his stereotypes and if you want people to do the right thing, tell them to use their common sense to do it.Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): Wikipedia tells us things that it immediately claims as true, although everyone can edit it as they see fit. Therefore, if you accept everything that Wikipedia tells you as true you are not looking for the truth, and you are not using your common sense.
Voltaire, “On Francis Bacon” from Letters on the English, (1778)
Although the title says, "On Francis Bacon, Voltaire is actually comparing Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton, or the French (Descartes) and the English (Newton) and there methods to approaching philosopy. Voltaire is exploring the possibilities for why the two differed in thought. Newton believes that because Descartes struggled, his philosophies were of course more poetic and soulful and passionate because he had experienced many different types of emotions and incoporated that into his beliefs. Descartes had more reason to be bitter and depressed (ex. loss of his daughter). Newton was much different. He had lived a happy life, and mankind was "his pupil" rather than his "enemy", as it was for Descartes. Basically, Voltaire is just exploring the different philosopies and why one is positive while the other is negative.Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment, (1784)
-Enlightenment is moving out of immaturity, immaturity is the inability to use your understanding without someone elses guidance, and you bring that immaturity on yourself-This immaturity is accepted by men because they are lazy cowards, and you cannot just let the Church decide things for you and tell you what is right and wrong down through the ages, because it limits the next ages knowledge since no one can ever question it without being a heretic and getting burnt at the stake
-It’s out divine right to question and to reason, so people are free to bring forth their beliefs for others to judge but you cannot just state something as true and MAKE people believe it—you’re immature if you do that, or if you let other people do it to you.
Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): If you let people who are supposedly “experts” tell you what to do, then you are being a fool. If you go onto google and type in the topic for an essay, expecting someone else to have answered it for you and accept that as the truth and u*se it, you are cheating and being “immature” according to Kant
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Sir Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
- French Revolution is not good.- There are some good things that government and states have done.
- Government's job is to keep a good reputation.
- France was created with people from old days and they had built good reputation, and recent people did nothing about it.
- However, at this point, people wanted to some changes, and they wanted to try new things.
- Different people have different opinions
- It is NOT government's obligation to fulfill the desires of each person
Marie Jean Antoine Caritat, marquis de Concordet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Human Mind, (1793)
-Man has some unalienable rights, we are only just discovering this recently and now we may say them anytime that we wish-The truth will win out in the end, no matter what people may do or what may happen in the world “The time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free men who know no other master but their reason”
-“Nature has set no limit to the realization of our hopes”, we will always be discovering new truth, no more tyrants, no more priests telling us what we must believe, and we will realize how to stop them from ever rising again
Baldwin Analogy (as told by Tom): When you were born, people were telling you what was true and you accepted it, and they controlled you completely. But as you got older, you started to discover for yourself what was “true” and what was not, and so you will always be doing until you are truly your own person
Tierney Documents.....yay....
French National Assembly The August 4th Decree (1789)
National Assembly, Declarations of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789)
Charles Tilly, The Vendee (1791)
Olympe de Gouges, Declaration of the Rights of Women and the Female Citizen (1791)
National Convention, Session of 9 Brumaire (1791)
Sans-Culotte, What is a Sans-Culotte
Maximilien Robespierre, On Principles of Political Morality (1794)
Maximillien Robespieere- explains what the Revolution is all about- to establish a nation based on liberty and equality→ model for all other nations with monarchies→ urges Convention to remove any opponents of the revolution violently- any opponents to the Revolution are keeping it from reaching its highest potential- thus, any and all against the Revolution must be exterminatedNapoleon's Agents, An Instruction for Senators (1805)
Post-Midterm Tierney/Primary Documents
William Wordsworth The Excursion (1814)
Thomas Babington Macaulay, On the Reform Bill of 1832, (1832)
English Working Class Protestors People's Petition of 1838 (1838)
Address of the Female Political Union of Newcastle to their Fellow Countrywomen (1839)
Louis Blanc, The Organization of Labor (1840)
Uncle Karl and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848)
Carl Schurz, Reminiscences (1848?)
"It was not mindful of the fact that in times of great commotion the history of the world does not wait for a theoretical thinker. And thus it failed." (I just think this quote sums up why a lot of bad things happen when it comes to the world...maybe that's just me.)Basically, this document was looking at the political atmosphere in the German states following the revolution in 1848, and how the reason that the Parliament of Frankfurt failed was because they didn't establish a ruler (Kaiser) quick enough, so therefore the German princes who still had power stopped listening to what this government had to say. They felt like every time the parliament gave the common people more power, they (the nobles) were losing more power. this is a pretty clear concept, but it's important in this portion of history. In addition, it addresses the fact that there were numerous German states that included other nationalities, such as the Austrian empire that contained German, Magyar, Slavic and Italian peoples, and how this influenced how much power the central German government could have, since these people were being stimulated by the revolutions going on around them.
Samuel Smiles, Self-Help (1859)